How is the word 'violence' parliamentary?

On Wednesday, the main character who blocked the parliament became the speaker. The way he interpreted the word violence and ruled, became the point of contention. Speaker Ghimire ruled that the word "violence" should not be removed from the records of the Parliament as it is being spoken in Parliament and is a parliamentary word that can be spoken, which is not only wrong and unfortunate but also unparliamentary and unconstitutional. The word violence is not written anywhere in any article of the constitution. Instead, words like people's war, armed war can be considered parliamentary.

The captain of the parliament should run the parliament in a peaceful way, if he blocks it by wrong ruling, what else is unfortunate like that? A few days ago, UML secretary Bhattarai also used the same words and language repeatedly in the sovereign parliament to insult the Maoist party. He accused the Maoists of committing violence, not people's war, for 10 years, but deliberately forgot the same nature of violence committed by his own party during its establishment.

A person as educated as him using such language and words and forgetting the history and facts of his own party has made his stature low. Is the Jhapa movement not violence? Maoist will cause violence and UML will be the lotus flower? As far as violence is concerned, the general Nepalese people are peaceful, who not only do not want to do violence but also do not want to hear the word. Whether it was done by Maoist, UML or any other party!
– Gopal Devkota, Gokarneshwar-8 Kathmandu